Reviews

Leading female gains access to high profile leading male by means of false pretenses, in which she claims the identity of her suddenly and inconveniently absent female boss. She then proceeds to charm him beyond measure.

Once you've seen one of these concoctions, you have quite literally seen them all. There's no need to waste additional time in one's finite life with "My Summer Prince" (despite the allure of Taylor Cole's charming cheekbones). In the present case, seventeen minutes were enough to make this Romantic Comedy a completely unwatchable fiasco for me. I'm sure Ms. Cole played out the role of pretending to be her boss admirably. I'm sure the lie was conveniently forgiven in the end. I'm sure everybody lived happily ever after.

I'm also sure I wasn't interested in wasting one more second than necessary.

Taking on the boss's identity under false pretenses is absolutely a non starter as a plot line.

I'm out!

"Arranged Love" is a great story, especially within the uber cliché Rom-Com genre. It's a refreshing break from so many recent Rom-Coms that play out almost exactly the same script, with changes in setting and character names.

The problem is, it's way too Bollywood: It relies too much upon the crutches of melodrama and exoticism, which end up choking the potentially good performances by a solid cast. As a result, what had the potential to be something great ends up being a safety dance -- Bollywood style -- of superficiality, leading us right down the same path of the cliché Rom-Coms I thought for a moment that it just might transcend.

Basically, entertaining, until the shoulder-shrug ending.

I noticed a reviewer here expressing disappointment that Paint doesn't really get going until more than halfway through the movie. I agree, it felt tedious at first, but come to a much different conclusion. When you paint something, whether for artistic or practical purposes, it takes time for that paint to dry. And you can't do anything with -- you can't use -- the object you're painting until it is completely and thoroughly dry.

So as I was wondering what the heck was going on in Paint, wishing that Woody Allen had written the script, things started picking up as Wilson's Carl Nargle reached his transcendental moment, thru art.

While I can't paint (because I was told I couldn't draw at a very young age), I love photography and have a knack for lighting and composition. I've known several landscapes, walks, people, objects that have fascinated me over the years. I can take hundreds, occasionally even thousands of photos of the same thing, in the same place, at the same time of day. But it's never the same. Kinda like Nargle painting Mansfield Mountain. Just keep on painting the same thing, over and over, and you might just get one of them right. Or two. Or three. Throw the rest away, sell them, give them away. You got your painting, you got your transcendental moment. What more could you ask for? When you get to that point, everything in your world suddenly works itself out, makes sense. All is well in your universe. Go paint (or photograph, draw, sculpt, etc.) something else. Or not. Keep on painting, keep doing your thing, figure it out when you feel stuck in a rut. Overcome obstacles. By all means, be patient. "Paint" shows us Carl Nargle's experience doing this. In order to succeed, Carl needs, among other things, the great attributes of patience and persistence. Paint made me feel his patience and persistence, and that's why I consider it a very good movie.

Mr. Garrett, the main character in Chasing Leprechauns, flies to a small Irish town for business, only to come face to face with his own reality:

1. Mr. Garrett talks an awful lot of blarney;

2. He does not believe in leprechauns; and

3. He thinks he can just come into town, throw his tons of money around, and get what he wants.

Barmaid Sarah Cavanaugh, the town's leprechaun expert, whose formal approval is required for Mr. Garrett to achieve the goal of his business trip, has a very clear notion of the dangers of letting big business come to town and have their way, especially if that business is a mining company.

Then, before our eyes, and with the aid of the invisible little beings, Mr. Garrett's transformation takes place, right before our eyes.

Lots of fun & amusement -- as can be expected when a few leprechauns get involved :-)

At its core, "I'm Glad it's Christmas" is a light, entertaining Christmas Rom-Com, full of cliché and recycled story lines that we've seen before, reasonably well done -- something I would normally rate as 6/10, if I watched it.

And then there's Gladys Knight in her supporting role, which even includes a small singing part.

As they say, a rising tide lifts all boats, and Gladys Knight is certainly the tide that rises, lifting the performances of the main and supporting actors, while giving greater meaning and a unique feel to the overall story.

For me, Gladys Knight lifts the entire production, and makes for good holiday entertainment.

The most important takeaways from the JFK cover-up, brilliantly exposed by Oliver Stone in JFK Revisited: Through the Looking Glass, as well as JFK is that we need to stop referring to November 22, 1963, as "The Kennedy Assassination". That language is part of the cover-up. If everybody refers to the events of that day as "assassination", we fail to realize that a bona fide coup d'état occurred in the US on that day.

From Webster On-line: Definition of coup d'état: a sudden decisive exercise of force in politics especially: the violent overthrow or alteration of an existing government by a small group

Two things happen with the passage of time: One, the older generations die off, and two, thinking on any particular matter changes.

The older generations of the US have been so thoroughly brainwashed by the lone assassin story, they are extremely unlikely to consider the matter, much less change their opinions on the matter. Despite the internet and its 24-hour news cycle, the truth of history has always been that it is never written by the people who were alive when the events it depicts took place. The passage of time gives us perspective.

Plenty of folks who were alive in 1963 are still alive today. Bless their hearts, and I wish them happiness in their golden years. I count several of them among my own loved ones. Even so, I would never discuss the 1963 coup d'état in the United States with them, because their ideas of that event are so fixed in their minds as to be utterly immutable, and they are inclined to uphold them as long as they live.

I have no idea idea who shot JFK, or which particular portrayal of events bears the most resemblance to the truth. But one thing is certain: Lee Harvey Oswald did not assassinate President Kennedy. I don't know whether he participated in the events of that day, but if so, he certainly did not do so alone.

The only thing I do know is that a sudden decisive exercise of force in politics, a violent overthrow or alteration of an existing government by a small group did happen. That constitutes a coup d'état and therein lies the greatness of the two Oliver Stone movies: They lead us away from writing a most dubious, untenable version of history, towards a more accurate one, as the years and decades go by.

I was a bit hesitant to watch a movie about small talk, but Good Morning and director Yasujirô Ozu have received so much praise, in the end, I had to watch it.

"Good Morning" is a stroke of genius, for stunning cinematography, as well as a perfect musical score. I watch most movies with saturation turned down to almost black & white, on a "13-inch" screen. The lighting is perfect, the compositions, the camera angles, the lens choices and their corresponding fields of view -- made for an hour and a half photography exhibition of moving snapshots.

The only mistake I made in viewing was to watch with subtitles, because I don't understand Japanese. Terrible choice! 30 minutes into the film, I began to doubt whether I would finish watching -- the characters talk about nothing, there's no story line to speak of. "Good morning" seemed like some Japanese family soap opera. The only thing was, I couldn't turn it off -- because the photography was so captivating. The images pulled me into the film, so I stayed with it.

Then, with about 10 minutes left, I got an intuition: Just turn off the subtitles, which distract my eyes from the beautiful imagery passing before them. What a revelation -- I only wish I had thought of it sooner.

I will watch "Good morning" again -- probably in 1-2 weeks. I need some time to "forget" the dialog. Then I'll watch it again, in quasi b/w, on a 13-inch screen, NO SUBTITLES! Judging by the final 10 minutes of the movie already seen sans subtitles, it will be an even better experience for me!

I watched Last Christmas 3 days ago, first half in color, second half in black & white, all on a 13" screen.

For most of the movie, particularly the first half, I was pretty much in alignment with the feeling of a 6.6/10, as in the Imdb average rating. The little surprise towards the end of the film so took me by surprise, even though I had been warned to expect the unexpected.

As the days go by, however, I'm repeatedly drawn to this cosmic connection between Kate & Tom. It's worth being patient with some of the melodrama of Kate's life. I never would have expected such a story from George Michael's song... in the end, it's brilliant! 8/10

"You made me love you" is a brilliant comedy that made me laugh harder than I have at a movie in quite a while.

Warning: It took me about 10 minutes to get into the vibe of the film, as it's still very close cousin to the West End. At that point, I was on the verge of turning the movie off for good, but that little voice inside told me to be patient, and a bit more open minded... it was worth it!

Once I got over my own prejudices -- I usually like a cinematic rather than theatrical experience -- I found myself roaring with laughter. I caught on to the Taming of the Shrew overtones fairly quickly. Only, in this case, it was better than Shakespeare, in that I was roaring with laughter.

The best part is, even though I had a pretty good idea of how the whole production would turn out, the story line did hold me in suspense at the key dramatic moment. I could see the timer on my video player winding down in the final 10 minutes and just kept on wondering: How are they going to resolve this thing by the end of the movie?

They did resolve it, with simple, brilliant cinema:

Lights, camera, action.

I'm a big fan of that great romantic hero, the underdog who overcomes the odds and the obstacles to achieve the goal, to emerge victorious.

In that sense, The Brighton Miracle certainly does not disappoint. Still, that's not enough to warrant a 10/10 rating.

What I found to be unique, artistic, edgy and utterly creative was the way they blended the real world people with their dramatized versions, especially the most challenging: Eddie Jones and Michael Leitch. The movie moved seamlessly between the brilliant acting of Temuera Morrison and Lasarus Ratuere, and the commentary of their real life counterparts, slaughtering yet another sacred cow of cinema (the other sacred cow that was recently slaughtered was that of mixing real actors with animated characters). That wasn't just true for those two; the entire supporting cast made me a believer in the exact same way.

Conceptually, I "knew" when I was watching an actor act and speak lines vis à vis when the "real" person was sharing their commentary. At the same time, however, on a much deeper level, I was always aware, I always recognized that the persona I was watching in either case was one and the same. They merged to form something greater than logic: Myth.

That, in my opinion, is the measure of a true work of art. 10/10

I mostly love "Troy" -- it's the first movie where I felt that Brad Pitt began to act, and I appreciate the artful depiction of the myth of the Trojan War in a way that modern folks can relate to.

Normally, I want to rate Troy as 8/10, but feel compelled to drop my rating 2 full points, because Cassandra was omitted from the story. In my opinion, this omission would be tantamount to leaving out Patroclus, Achilles's cousin, from the story. The latter played a similarly small but vital role in the plot, and he was included in the movie.

Cassandra was the clairvoyant virgin princess of Troy dedicated to Apollo, whose prophecies were never believed, but always came true. She warned that the Greeks were inside the Trojan Horse, and she even tried to burn the horse itself. Her objections, if heeded, would have changed the narrative, perhaps averting disaster entirely.

To have her strong objection, in both word and action, to admitting the Trojan Horse into the city reduced to a couple of lines spoken by Paris is, in my opinion, detrimental to the entire otherwise excellent production.

"Fasting" has been an inspirational movie for me, especially when considered along with my other practices in life. The film takes an excellent perspective, looks at the benefits and risks of fasting from most or all angles, and helps with deciding whether or not one should fast, and if so, it brings up several alternatives and caveats to consider.

"Fasting" is not designed to be a research document; rather, it is designed to be informative, and also allows different people in different circumstances, from different backgrounds to simply share their experiences and some of their knowledge.

Personally, I came to the movie by way of other intuitive practices: It appeared at just the right time in my life, and a new facebook friend who shares my intuitive practice told me a little about their approach to intuition, which included intermittent fasting as part of a spiritual regimen. Simultaneously receiving these two signals from the universe caused me to watch the film as soon as I was able, while simultaneously kicking off my own short term fast, which should last about 1-3 days, depending on what my intuition tells me.

I have used intermittent fasting, albeit at irregular time intervals, in the past for these same intuitive reasons, and felt great benefit, but I had not done so in several years.

I have also done time restricted feeding: I haven't eaten dinner since 2013, but for health reasons: I get massive heartburn if I eat solid food after about 4 p.m., and that usually occurs during sleep, sometimes getting so bad that I would wake up in the middle of the night not breathing, on the verge of drowning in my own vomit.

I brought my own personal experience to "Fasting", and the movie was done well enough to help improve my life right now. Sure, there were some things I didn't like in the movie, but they have nothing to do with the quality of the movie itself -- these things were perfectly relevant and on-point, regardless of my own personal preferences.

Normally, I would give "Fasting" 10/10, but I had to take off two stars for the following reasons:

1. Sound editing. Most or all speakers spoke way too fast. I had to watch the movie at 90% speed, and that was still too fast. By the end, I even lowered playback speed to 80%, which sounded about right for speed, but pitch and the musical score were affected. I consider this speedy talking to be the single major flaw of "Fasting".

2. It's a bit too North-America-centric. Hence the title of my review, a quote from Siddhartha, by Herman Hesse, which also helped me decide to fast these next few days. Of course the doctors in the different clinics can and should use the language as they did in "Fasting", but the people sharing their personal experiences were a bit too clinical-sounding at times. There's nothing wrong with that, but how about fasting for people who don't think and express themselves in such clinical terms?

Likewise, the part entitled "Religious Fasting" would be more universally expressed as "Spiritual Fasting", and consider a broader variety of people who are spiritual, but practice outside of organized religion and/or its doctrine. I consider this lack of universality to be a minor flaw.

In summary, "Fasting" is a great movie, because it raises awareness of a social phenomenon that has been relevant in prehistoric, ancient and modern times. "Fasting" is relevant to the human experience on Earth, and it's presented in a meaningful way, regardless of one's personal feelings about the phenomenon itself or different people's experiences with it.

I am thinking, I am waiting, I am fasting, right now. 8/10

Is this what we have to look forward to in millennial-made cinema?

Haven't we seen every possible iteration of the high school coming age comedy already?

To begin with the second question, apparently not. Olivia Wilde & Co. have taken the sub-genre and turned it on its head, and done so brilliantly, breaking 20th century rules of film, and engineering twists and turns that simply worked. I was totally on board for the emotional ride with the different characters from start to finish. The entire "Booksmart" team made all the correct artistic decisions, keeping my eyes glued to the screen, while simultaneously trying to keep my intestines in place, as I was laughing so hard.

So to answer the first question: I sure hope so!

I can see how some people perceive "Isn't it Romantic" as a parody of Rom-Coms. I feel that reading is entirely possible, if that's what you want to see. But I watched this movie with a more curious attitude. Where some see parody, I see massive transformation of the protagonist, achieved by massive transformation of their attitude.

My Fair Lady evolves by taking Pygmalion and lightening it up with one major adjustment: Lightening up Eliza Doolittle's father, by converting him to a role of comic relief. By lightening up the whole mood of the story, we can better allow the transformation of Eliza to occur.

I see the same sort of transformation in Natalie in the present film, only whereas Eliza Doolittle's transformation occurs by dramatically changing -- and lightening up -- her way of using language, Natalie's occurs by changing and lightening up the way she sees the world, i.e., visually. Eliza's use of language is streetwise and not elegant. Natalie's view of the world is cynical. When Eliza changes her way of engaging the world by use of language, she transforms her reality. When Natalie changes her way of seeing the same world she used to see, new and interesting possibilities suddenly become apparent to her. But those possibilities were always there -- she just filtered them out, just as Eliza filtered herself out of so many opportunities by her manner of speaking. In both cases, our respective heroine makes the monumental shift, they do the work on themselves, they change their speech or their view, and new opportunities arise. So now that each heroine has new opportunities, which really aren't new, and they make the necessary changes to themselves in action, they must rise to the occasion and face the challenge in their lives.

In both cases, my eyes are riveted to the screen, to see what each heroine does, how they work it out, how they resolve their same old situation, by taking a new approach. That is what I look for in a Rom-Com, and these two Rom-Coms in question, My Fair Lady and Isn't It Romantic both achieve this convincingly for me. So I perceive the parody aspect or point of view on this movie, but my chosen interpretation is different. And I rate both films 10/10, for creativity, style and elegance.

I used to be an SNL regular viewer, but got tired of being clobbered over the head with sexism and racism, and thus became much more selective in the episodes I watch.

Along comes Adam Sandler to provide one of those rare episodes in which the humor is actually based on... funny material acted out in funny ways.

I could see Ché and Strong aching to lead the cast back into the racism and sexism... a bit of a bummer, as Ché is actually funny. I was delighted to see the rest of the cast take their cues from Sandler, bringing their best efforts to create comedy by being funny.

The present episode reminds us that Adam Sandler loves a good sandwich. Looks like the schedule has placed him in an Emma sandwich. I didn't waste my time watching the first Emma episode (18), and it's unlikely (though possible, if my sources advise me otherwise) that I will watch the next one (20). I'll probably just toss both slices of industrial Emma bread, and stick with the more substantial Adam in the middle ;-)

In summary, this rare and unique episode 19 worked: It had me roaring with laughter from start to finish, with zero distraction.

I really liked Baja. I've spent plenty of time wandering down thru Mexico, without knowing exactly why. It's a magical, mysterious, and beautiful place. If you look up the history of cinema, in fact, proximity to Mexico (and distance from Edison) was one of the key reasons why the film industry settled in Hollywood to begin with. The Cal-Mex connection has been alive and well for at least a century, and that is very clear in Baja. I get it, I appreciate it, I value it.

Sure, there were plenty of cheesy moments in the film -- which is why I didn't give it an even higher rating. But that didn't bother me so much. I loved the passion and spontaneity and the magic realism of the trip. Oh yea, and plenty of laughs along the way, too. Well done!

This is worst movie I've seen in 2018. I get the idea of trying to put a modern twist on Cyrano de Bergerac, as stated in another review. Only problem is, Gerard Depardieu actually acted, and there was a script with dialog. The Roxanne remake was also pretty good. Watching adolescents play on their smart phones without a single line of dialog, except perhaps by Sierra's friend on occasion, does not make for good cinema, in any era, in any context.

Sadly, I believed the characters, but I certainly didn't care about them.

Did the love interests finally work out? Who knows? I didn't care about the story, either.

If you want to watch a very good rom-com modernization of a classic in a high school setting, I recommend ignoring "Sierra Burgess is a Loser", and opting for the 1999 version of "10 things I hate about you." It is everything Sierra Burgess couldn't be.

The whole cast & crew nailed it perfectly.

Brilliant!

The remake of "Overboard" is not as bad as some say. Not as good as others proclaim. Not as good as the original, either. But it's not bad... it's all right, and certainly had me laughing quite a bit.

So if you want to enjoy a good laugh, I recommend it. If you want to see a masterpiece of cinema, you'll probably want to check out something else.

I struggled to make it through "Loving Pablo". The goofy accents made it into some ridiculous sort of comi-tragedy, in which cartoon characters are acted out by people. Made the whole production seem confounded and stupid.

Having Colombians characters speaking slurred English among themselves in exaggerated accents was the wrong artistic choice. It distracts from the story, and calls credibility into question.